On 5/12/2016 5:31 PM, mur@. wrote:
> On 4/29/2016 9:17 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 4/29/2016 9:03 AM, ****wit David Harrison - just "****wit" as he's
>> usually known - bullshitted:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:41:22 +0100, Derek >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do have to agree with them in that eating
>>>> meat can have the effect of bringing happy lives into the world if
>>>> livestock
>>>> farmers do their job according to strict welfare rules.
>>> . . .
>>>> Unlike me they intuitively believe
>>>> that the best policy is one that can bring about the most happiness
>>>> in the
>>>> world even if, in practice, it brings about a lot of misery, because
>>>> that
>>>> misery isn't part of the original policy and therefore can be
>>>> disregarded.
>>>
>>> Since you're actiing like you people consider quality of life I'm
>>> curious if
>>> any of you try to present the absurd position that you:
>>>
>>> "don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>> "lives of
>>> negative value" means anything."
>>
>> No, the issue is that *you* can't say how you can tell one from the
>> other in fact.
>>
>>
>>> significance of that aspect of the situation.
>>
>> LOL! "Aspect of the situation" - you just sound stupid when you try to
>> sound erudite.
>
> Only to someone who can't comprehend or recognise the significance of the
> aspects of any situations

There is no "significance" to any "aspects" of any "situation" you
bullshit about, ****wit.

It is not morally "significant" in any way that livestock animals "get
to experience life." Only the products matter.